This is the man who has been censoring media, paying off people, bankrolling the Obama campaign with bogus $25 donations x millions.

This is a man who is the the king of special interest.

If all what Obama has done or said still has had no effect on why you should not vote for him, this guy alone associated with Obama and Axelrod is your main reason to not support Obama.

—————–

“Soros remains primarily committed to destroying the remaining bastions of the family, sovereign nationhood, and Christian Faith east of the Trieste-Stettin line. He senses that his full-throttle intervention in America is not necessary, because things are gradually going his way anyway.” Srdja Trifkovic

by Srdja Trifkovic (www.ChroniclesMagazine.org )

George Soros was born in Budapest in 1930 but, today, spends most of his time in New York City. Not much is known about his early years. He is the only eminent “holocaust survivor” who has been accused of collaboration with the Nazis. In 1947, he managed to sneak through the Iron Curtain, and, the official story goes, “he landed penniless in London, but by hard work and sheer genius, he rose to become one of the planet’s most successful investors and richest men.”

Mr. Soros’ peculiar moral values, political views, and ideological preferences would be immaterial without the money that he can spend promoting and imposing them. The bulk of that money-currently estimated at not less than seven billion dollars-was earned in the minus-sum game of currency and stock speculation, contributing nothing to the creation of wealth and making millions of ordinary people poorer in the process. His offshore Quantum Fund-legally headquartered in Curacao, beyond U.S.-government supervision-specializes in speculative investments to take advantage of deliberately induced political and economic weaknesses of different countries and regions. In an interview with the Swiss weekly L’hebdo (May 1993), Soros outlined his strategy: “I speculate on discrepancy between the reality and the public image of this reality, until a correctional mechanism occurs, which approaches these two.”

His profits are staggering. On September 16, 1992, he famously made a billion dollars in one day by betting against the Bank of England and the pound sterling. In July 1997, he contributed to the Southeast Asian financial crisis by shorting the Thai baht. In early 2000, he supposedly suffered losses on tech stocks, but some analysts now suggest that the burn of the NASDAQ was controlled and that Soros helped to start the fire. By last November, he was betting the U.S. dollar would plummet. As the London Independent reported (November 28, 2003), his activities were contributing to a growing belief on Wall Street that the dollar would slide even further.

There is nothing new in Soros’ approach to making money or in the ability of such a person to make an impact, invariably detrimental, on his host society’s morals and culture. What is new with Mr. Soros-in addition to the implausible claim that a private speculator could get as far as he has unaided by any established financial interests-is his systematic, concerted effort to use a large part of his fortune to promote his peculiar social and political views. He does so through a global network of “nongovernmental organizations” named after himself and active primarily in Eastern Europe but also in Africa, Latin America, and the United States. At age 75, money is not his object but his tool. He has used it to develop a well-coordinated global operation centered on the Open Society Institute (OSI) in New York, which funds a network of subsidiaries in over 50 countries.

Even before the Open Society network came into being, Soros’ blueprint for postcommunist “shock therapy” reform had been put to the test. First came Poland, where the first postcommunist prime minister, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, was close to Soros and subsequently remained associated with his local subsidiary, the Stefan Batory Foundation. In his book Underwriting Democracy, Soros says that he personally prepared the broad outlines of Poland’s comprehensive economic reform:

“I joined forces with Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Harvard University, who was advocating a similar program, and sponsored his work in Poland through the Stefan Batory Foundation . . . The IMF approved and the program went into effect on Jan. 1, 1990. It was very tough on the population, but people were willing to take a lot of pain in order to see real change.”

Poland was only a start, however; far more important to his goals was his association in 1991-92 with Russia’s “reformist” leaders Anatoly Chubais and Yegor Gaidar and their Harvard guru Sachs. Within a year of their “shock therapy,” hyperinflation had wiped out Russians’ savings and the long-suffering middle class with it. Pensioners were literally starving. The parallel “privatization” of Russia’s huge resources-timber, oil, gas, chemicals, media-created the robber oligarchs and contributed to Russia’s effective deindustrialization. The country was lowered into neocolonial dependence: a supplier of energy and raw materials and an importer of high technology and manufactured goods. Nevertheless, in early 1993, Soros felt that Russia had not gone far enough: “The social safety net would also provide a powerful incentive to shut down loss-making enterprises. Factories could be idled and the raw materials and energy that go into production could be sold for more than the output.”

George Soros is out to deconstruct nations and states as Europe has known them for centuries, with Russia always the main prize. In an interview with the Moscow daily Komersant (August 8, 1997), he declared that “a strong central government in Russia cannot be democratic.” “The rescue of a free Russian economy depends on the attraction of Western investments,” he added, and, to that end, “Russia’s general public must accept the ideology of an open society.”

By that time, a total of 29 “Soros Foundations” were active in every postcommunist country. In 1994, his foundations spent a total of $300 million; by 1998, that figure had risen to $574 million. These are enormous sums in an impoverished and vulnerable Eastern Europe.

Those foundations say that they are “dedicated to building and maintaining the infrastructure and institutions of an open society.” What this means in practice is clear from their many fruits. Regarding “women’s health” programs in Central and Southeastern Europe, for instance, one will look in vain for breast-cancer detection or prenatal or postnatal care. Soros’ main goal is clear and frankly stated: “to improve the quality of abortion services.” Accordingly, his Public Health Program has supported the introduction of medical abortion in Albania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia and the introduction of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) abortion in Macedonia, Moldova, and Russia. In addition,

“OSI has also worked with international and local NGOs to respond to the growing strength of the antiabortion movement. Through its influence on ministries of health and hospital administrators, that movement has made strides in reducing access to abortion . . . OSI will continue to support training in quality of care and efforts to keep abortion legal, safe, and accessible for all women in the region.”

Why is Soros so interested in promoting more abortions in Eastern Europe? Overpopulation cannot be the reason: The region is experiencing a colossal demographic collapse and has some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. Unavailability of abortion cannot be the answer either: According to a recent U.N. report, five European countries had more abortions than live births in 2000-the Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Belarus, Rumania, and Ukraine. Overall, the report said, abortion rates are “substantially higher in central and eastern Europe and the CIS countries than in western Europe and North America.” The only logical answer is that Soros wants as few Russians and others born into this world as possible.

Soros’ public-health programs also “support initiatives focusing on the specific health needs of several marginalized communities” and promote “harm reduction”: “Its primary goal is to empower drug users to protect their health. Needle/syringe exchange and substitution therapies (e.g., methadone) are at the center of harm reduction health interventions.” His “harm reducers” have expanded their work with special initiatives on “sex workers” and prisoners and launched a policy initiative that attempts to ensure that “repressive drug policies do not impede the expansion of harm reduction efforts.”

Over the past five years, the Soros network has given a successful start to previously nonexistent “gay” activism in almost all of its areas of operation. The campaign for “LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] Rights” is directed from Budapest, where Miriam Molnar’s 1999 policy paper published by OSI defined the “problem” as discrimination and the low level of acceptance, visibility, and political representation of LGBT’s. It was necessary either “to convince the society to accept LGBT people as equal and let the society make pressure [sic] to the politicians (through media) to change laws” or “to convince the politicians that LGBT people are equal and that they need help in convincing the rest of the society.” The overall goals were to generate discussion about LGBT identity within the community, to make them visible and “create a positive image,” and to establish regular forums of discussion with other groups in the region. Specific tasks included the development of websites in English with subsites in local languages, the establishment of task forces that would react to all “homophobic” media outbursts in one “Pink Book,” and the organization of two-week summer schools for teachers that would “provide training about discrimination of [sic] LGBT people, disabled people, overweight people etc.”

In November 1999, a pilot project began at the Center for Publishing Development (OSI Budapest) on homosexual books in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, and Slovakia. That same year, Nash Mir (Our World) Gay and Lesbian Center announced that it had been registered as an NGO in the Ukraine. From that moment, the group was free to pursue its stated goals, including “fight against sexual-orientation discrimination” and “homophobic sentiments in societal consciousness” and “assistance to upbringing of gays’ and lesbians’ self-consciousness as equal and valuable members of society.” The group expressed gratitude for its legalization to the “Ukrainian branch of Soros Foundation Network (Renaissance Foundation) which lobbied our question in the Ministry of Justice and render [sic] legal assistance to us.”

Gay.ru is a Soros-funded Moscow NGO that has developed “into an established and recognized Russian gay and lesbian center” and “the clearing house for lesbian and gay groups scattered across the country”:

“We keep contacts with all existing gay, lesbian, and AIDS organizations in Russia and maintain on-going correspondence and reporting to international gay and lesbian organizations . . . We have collected the biggest off-line library that features over a hundred Russian titles and some fifty English classic books on gay studies. It was greatly enhanced by the Core Collection on Gay and Lesbian Issues awarded to us by the Soros Foundation in 2000.”

In Bucharest, Monika Barcsy of the local Soros branch bewailed the fact that, in Rumania, “the homosexual identity is stigmatized” and is one of the main bases for treating individuals as “the others” in an attitude of intolerance. Their families became the victims of prejudice “just because the society is unable to accept the legitimacy of same-sex relations as a ‘normal’ manifestation.” The author singles out the Rumanian Orthodox Church as a prime culprit: “The problem is that many Christian Orthodox students’ organizations and other student groups support the church.” In 1994, she points out, more than 100 theology students began a series of demonstrations in front of Rumania’s parliament against homosexual propaganda in the media and collected signatures demanding legislation to criminalize same-sex relations. Barcsy concludes by reiterating the standard Soros line:

“Gay men and lesbians need rights that guarantee them the expression of their identity in the public sphere . . . [T]he legal status of gays and lesbians, their ability to move and appear in public, to speak out and act together should be considered a very good test of the civic openness. [It] can’t be resolved with the new laws made under the pressure of different human rights organizations. Romania needs . . . to ameliorate the negative responses towards the homosexuals from the majority population . . . There are “problems” with the society as a whole, and the society’s mentality can’t be changed overnight.”

A key pillar of Soros’ activities is his dictum that “no-one has a monopoly on the truth” and that “civic education” should replace the old “authoritarian” model. Civic education does not have to be “just a dialogue” between a teacher and students, he says; in addition, “we have projects like health education, where people use new ways to discuss issues like hygiene, diet, and sex.” While “this does not sound like traditional civic education,” he continues, it is “a new way for teachers to relate to their pupils,” just as citizens must relate in new ways to governments and elected officials in societies trying to become more open and democratic.

Accordingly, throughout postcommunist Eastern Europe, the Soros Foundation’s primary stated goal is to “democratize the education system” by “instituting curriculum reforms.” What this means in practice has been demonstrated over the past three years by Serbia’s education minister Gaso Knezevic, a friend and confidante of Soros. Since the first day of his tenure, Mr. Knezevic has insisted that schools must be transformed from “authoritarian” institutions into “exercise grounds” for the “unhindered expression of students’ personalities in the process of equal-footed interaction with the teaching staff, thus vercoming the obsolete concept of authority and discipline rooted in the oppressive legacy of patriarchal past.” Mr. Knezevic started his reform with primary schools, with a pilot program of “educational workshops” for children ages 7 to 12. The accompanying manual, financed by the Open Society, rejects the quaint notion that the purpose of education is the “acquisition of knowledge” and insists that the teacher has to become the class “designer” and that his relationship with students should be based on “partnership.”

In Russia, Soros’ associates exercise great control over the selection of textbooks for Russian schools. According to a press release by the Gaidar Youth Library, financial support from the Open Society Institute provided it with computers, videocassettes, and CD’s, all of which made “special training” for the children of “underprivileged people” possible in the library:

“We organized a special seminar “Children’s rights nowadays” for all specialists who took part in our project . . . The working group of the program “The Circle of Friends” is grateful to the “Open Society” Institute (Soros Fund, Budapest) for the opportunity to realize this project in a full volume.“

In 1999, the Moscow Open Society office started a major five-year project, “The Development of Education in Russia.” Its goal is to “reeducate rural teachers at a cost of US $100-150 million” (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 19, 1998). It is also applying a program called “Tolerance” in Russian secondary schools, but its masterminds may have made a linguistic blunder. According to a Russian critic of the program,

The Russian translation of this Latin word-tyerpimost-has the dual meaning of prostitution and could be confused with doma tyerpimosti, houses of ill fame . How come this financial manipulator tries to teach us about tolerance, us who grew up with Leo Tolstoy, one of the first philosophers of non-violence? But Mr. Soros is also a horribly distorted mirror, which should make us see our own, present image, without blinking or turning away. There are times when evil can become an eye-opener, when its derisive laughter can waken us up and help regaining our strength. We should not miss this opportunity.

A first step in that direction may have been taken last November 7, when the OSI Moscow office was raided by a private security company hired by the owner of the building with whom the foundation was engaged in a protracted legal battle. Only weeks before, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the billionaire oligarch and OSI Moscow executive director who has his own NGO called the Open Russia Foundation, was arrested and charged with tax evasion, theft, forgery, and fraud. Soros denounced the arrest as an act of “persecution” that should disqualify Russia from belonging to the G-8 group of industrialized countries. “I believe that he acted within the constraints of the law. I am doing the same in the United States,” said Soros, alluding to his multimillion-dollar donations toward “regime change” in Washington next November. The American press indignantly reported that the raid was directed against a philanthropic organization that had spent “more than $US 1 billion on charitable projects in Russia in the past 15 years.”

“Racism” is Soros’ regular obsession, but he faced the potential problem of finding it in racially nondiverse Eastern European countries. This has been resolved by identifying a designated victim group-Gypsies! “Few minority groups in Europe face as much social, economic, and political discrimination as do Romani people,” says OSI. Being a “Roma activist” has become a lucrative designation within the community. Seventy of the most promising ones came to the conference “Roma in Expanding Europe: Challenges for the Future,” held in Budapest last summer, at which Soros inaugurated a “Decade of Roma Inclusion.” The conference offered policy recommendations, some of which could have been written by Jesse Jackson: first, obligatory and free preschool education in desegregated classrooms; second, Romani assistants in the classroom, especially in preschool; third, antibias training for teachers and school administrators; and fourth, integration of Romani history and culture in textbooks at all levels.

Legally mandated affirmative-action programs for Roma in high schools and universities were recommended by the delegations of Rumania and Serbia-Montenegro. On employment, the conference recommended tax incentives for those who employ Roma and access to low-interest credit for small Roma-owned family businesses. The Czech and Slovak delegations also proposed setting aside a percentage of government contracts for Roma construction firms. In the area of housing, specific demands were made to combat “racism and discrimination,” including the “legalization” of shantytowns and “equal access” to municipal housing. The conference concluded that combating racial discrimination against Roma must be pursued through the adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation complying with the requirements of the E.U. Race Equality Directive.

The Rumanian delegation demanded that the Bucharest government recognize the Roma holocaust by issuing a public apology along with urgent adoption of a reparations package. The European Union was asked to make sure that Roma are broadly involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of all E.U. spending on Roma projects.

Soros’ “programs” would have been deemed laughable or outrageous in their target countries only a decade ago. No one is laughing today, however. For thousands of young Eastern Europeans, to become a “Soroshite” represents today what joining the Party represented to their parents: an alluring opportunity to have a reasonably paid job, to belong to a privileged elite, and, for many, to travel abroad. The chosen few go to Soros’s own Central European University in Budapest, where they are taught that affirming a scientifically grounded truth is “totalitarian” and that the sovereign nation-state is evil.

There is not one patriot (Russian, Croat, Latvian, Serb, Rumanian, Hungarian) or one practicing Christian on Soros’ payroll. In all postcommunist countries, Soros relies on the sons and daughters of the old communist establishment, who are less likely to be tainted by any atavistic attachments to their native soil, culture, and traditions. The more successful among them-and the most loyal-may spend years drifting from one “project” to another, and some have been living that way for more than a decade. Soros has revealed (in Underwriting Democracy) that his Open Society foundations will help create an international web, at the heart of which will be the computerized base of personal data that will enable Western multinationals to find the local candidates they need.

These new janissaries, just like those of the Ottoman army of old, have to prove their credentials by being more zealous than the master himself; as the Balkan proverb has it, “a convert is worse than a Turk.” Nobody is more insanely vehement in his insults against the Serbian people and their history, religion, art, and suffering than a dozen Serb-born columnists who are on the payroll of Sonja Licht, Soros’ Gauleiter in Belgrade.

Hoi polloi are force-fed the daily fare of OSI agitprop by “the Soros media”-the term now exists in over a dozen languages-from the Gazeta Wyborcza in Warsaw to Danas (Today) in Serbia, the Monitor in Montenegro, the Markiza TV channel in Bratislava, and Vreme weekly and the B-92 electronic media conglomerate in Belgrade. They invariably parrot Soros’ views and ambitions, reflected by the agenda of the local Soros foundation at home and, in world affairs, by the International Crisis Group (ICG), largely financed by Soros and run by his appointees.

Soros’ agenda in world affairs is clear from the fact that his appointees include Gen. Wesley Clark, who commanded NATO forces in the war against Serbia in 1999; Louise Arbour, the former chief prosecutor of the Yugoslav war-crimes tribunal at The Hague; former assistant secretary of state Morton Abramowitz, an enthusiastic supporter of Bosnian Muslims and Albanians in the wars of Yugoslav succession; and former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose visceral Russophobia aided and abetted the rise of Osama bin Laden and his jihadist cohorts.

As Gilles d’Aymery noted two years ago, Soros is not just the power behind the Open Society Institute, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the International Crisis Group:

“[L]ike an immense Jules Verne octopus, [he] extends his tentacles all over Eastern Europe, South-Eastern Europe, the Caucasus as well as the republics of the former Soviet Union. With the help of these various groups [it is possible] not only to shape but to create the news, the agenda and public opinion to further aims which are, in short, the control of the world, its natural resources and the furtherance of the uniform ideal of a perfect world polity made in America.“

That polity will not be “American” in any recognizable sense if Soros has his way, however. Here, he supports increased government spending and tax increases, drug legalization, euthanasia, open borders and immigration, immigrant entitlements, feminism, free abortion on demand, affirmative action, and “gay” rights. He opposes the death penalty in any circumstance. One of the trustees of OSI is Lani Guinier, the law professor whom Bill Clinton tried to nominate as head of the civil-rights division of the Department of Justice but changed his mind when she was found to favor minority veto power over legislation. Its president is Aryeh Neier, who had for 12 years been executive director of the Soros-funded Human Rights Watch and, before that, national director of the American Civil Liberties Union for eight years.

That he is anti-Bush is unremarkable, but Soros’ statement last December that the defeat of the President is “a matter of life and death” was silly. His largesse to Bush’s foes-although substantial-does not reflect the stated urgency of the moment: $15 million for America Coming Together; $3 million for John Podesta’s new think tank; and $2.5 million for MoveOn.org falls far short of a month’s cost of running his many foundations around the world.

Soros remains primarily committed to destroying the remaining bastions of the family, sovereign nationhood, and Christian Faith east of the Trieste-Stettin line. He senses that his full-throttle intervention in America is not necessary, because things are gradually going his way anyway. No matter who is his party’s anointed candidate come next November, the real choice will be between George and Gyorgy, and that is not much of a choice.

Srdja Trifkovic

————–

George Soros is a Hungarian immigrant who came to the U.S. in 1956, at age 26, and made his fortune as an international financier. His father, who was born into an Orthodox Jewish family, changed the family name from Schwartz to Soros in 1936 – a move that enabled the Soros family to conceal its Jewish identity and thus survive the Nazi Holocaust. In 1947 the family emigrated from Hungary to England, where an event occurred that greatly influenced the development of George’s personality and worldview. He broke his leg and was cared for by England’s National Health Service, free of charge, while the Jewish relief agencies of that era did not offer him the help he believed they owed him. In that convergence of events was born Soros’ favorable opinion of Democratic Socialism, and his negative view of many Jewish groups.

In 1956 Soros started life in America with very little money but a well-developed knowledge of investing, thanks to his education at the London School of Economics and his experience working for a London stockbroker. He transformed his meager seed money into a huge fortune by becoming one of the world’s leading hedge fund investors and currency traders. In 1969 he started his enormously successful Quantum Fund, which, over the ensuing three decades, yielded its long-term investors a four thousand-fold increase on their initial 1969 investments. During his career, Soros has orchestrated some extremely risky, ethically questionable deals. For instance, in a $10 billion 1992 deal whose success was contingent upon the devaluation of the British Pound, he earned himself a $1 billion profit and the title, “the man who broke the Bank of England.” Over the years, he has amassed a personal fortune of some $7 billion.

In 1979 Soros founded the Open Society Fund, and since then has created a large network of foundations that give away hundreds of millions of dollars each year, much of it to individuals and organizations that share and promote his leftist philosophy. He believes that in order to prevent right-wing fascism from overrunning the world, a strong leftist counterbalance is essential. Asserting that America needed “a regime change” to oust President Bush, Soros maintained that he would gladly have traded his entire fortune in exchange for a Bush defeat in the 2004 election. In a November 2003 interview with the Washington Post‘s Laura Blumenfeld, he stated that defeating President Bush in 2004 “is the central focus of my life”. . . “a matter of life and death.” “America under Bush,” he said, “is a danger to the world, and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.” Claiming that “the Republican party has been captured by a bunch of extremists,” Soros accuses the Bush administration of following a “supremacist ideology” in whose rhetoric he claims to hear echoes from his childhood in occupied Hungary. “When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ ” he explains, “it reminds me of the Germans. It conjures up memories of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit (The enemy is listening). My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me.”

In August 2006 Soros wrote a Wall Street Journal piece titled “A Self-Defeating War.” The article’s premise is that “the war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies.” “Five years after 9/11,” Soros elaborates, “a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several fronts — Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia — a war that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the world. Yet al Qaeda has not been subdued.”

According to Soros, “[T]errorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush’s global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.” “The war on terror,” adds Soros, “emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. … [It] drives a wedge between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world. Taken together, these … factors ensure that the war on terror cannot be won. An endless war waged against an unseen enemy is doing great damage to our power and prestige abroad and to our open society at home.”

In December of 2006, Soros met with Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama in his New York office. Soros had previously hosted a fund-raiser for Obama during the latter’s 2004 campaign for the Senate. On January 16, 2007, Obama announced the creation of a presidential exploratory committee, and within hours Soros sent the senator a contribution of $2,100, the maximum amount allowable under campaign finance laws. Later that week the New York Daily News reported that Soros would back Obama over Senator Hillary Clinton, whom he had also supported in the past. Soros’s announcement was seen as a repudiation of Clinton’s presidential aspirations, though Soros said he would support the New York senator were she to win the Democratic nomination.

In early January 2007, Soros was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Blitzer began the interview by asking Soros about the following quote that appears in Soros’s newly published book, The Age of Fallibility: “The Bush administration and the Nazi and communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear. Indeed, the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines by drawing on the innovations of the advertising and marketing industries.” When Blitzer asked him to defend that assertion, Soros replied:

“You actually picked out the most incendiary part of the book, and I am very careful to draw a clear distinction between the Nazi regime and our open society, because we are a democracy. But there are some similarities in the propaganda methods, which I pointed out. … I think there are some serious arguments about our open society being endangered by the policies followed by the Bush administration. The war on terror, which does not have an end, changes, it leads to an undue extension of executive powers. It has stifled debate. Criticizing the president is considered unpatriotic, and as a result, we have been following policies which endanger our traditional [unintelligible].”

“A lot of people will agree with you on that,” said Blitzer. “But where they will starkly disagree is to then bring in the whole Nazi and Communist comparison.” Soros replied: “Actually, it’s a valid point, and maybe I did go over the line, but I think that on the whole my assessment is a balanced one. And frankly, when President Bush said, ‘you are either with us or you are with the terrorists,’ that’s when I was reminded. But I should have probably kept it to myself.”

While criticizing the Iraq War for the benefit of reporters at the January 2007 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Soros unburdened himself of the view that Nazis were now running the United States government. “America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany,” Soros explained. “We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process.” Lest there be doubts that Soros was actually likening his adoptive country to the Third Reich and the Bush administration to the Nazi nomenklatura, a Soros spokesman, Michael Vachon, moved quickly to dispel them. “There is nothing unpatriotic about demanding accountability from the president,” he said of Soros’s appeal for de-Nazification. “Those responsible for taking America into this needless war should do us all a favor and retire from public office.”

In the April 12, 2007 issue of the New York Review of Books, Soros penned an article titled “On Israel, America and AIPAC,” wherein he derided the Bush administration for “committing a major policy blunder in the Middle East” by “supporting the Israeli government in its refusal to recognize a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas, which the U.S. State Department considers a terrorist organization.” In Soros’ calculus, “This precludes any progress toward a peace settlement at a time when progress on the Palestinian problem could help avert a conflagration in the greater Middle East.“ “Israel,” said Soros, “with the strong backing of the United States, refused to recognize the democratically elected Hamas government and withheld payment of the millions in taxes collected by the Israelis on its behalf. This caused great economic hardship and undermined the ability of the government to function. But it did not reduce popular support for Hamas among Palestinians, and it reinforced the position of Islamic and other extremists who oppose negotiations with Israel. … [Hamas] was not willing to go so far as to recognize the existence of Israel but it was prepared to enter into a government of national unity which would have abided by the existing agreements with Israel. … But both Israel and the United States seem to be frozen in their unwillingness to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority that includes Hamas. The sticking point is Hamas’s unwillingness to recognize the existence of Israel; but that [recognition] could be made a condition for an eventual settlement rather than a precondition for negotiations. … The current policy of not seeking a political solution but pursuing military escalation—not just an eye for an eye but roughly speaking ten Palestinian lives for every Israeli one—has reached a particularly dangerous point.”

“Many commentators have argued that Jews in both Israel and the US have a specific reason to fear an Obama presidency. Much attention has been paid to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the anti-Semitic, black supremacist preacher who has served as Obama’s spiritual guide for the past 20 years. Then too, there are Obama’s foreign policy advisors who range from the viscerally hostile towards Israel (Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power, Merrill Tony McPeak) to the messianically hostile towards Israel (Dan Kurtzer). Obama’s close associations with Palestinian and pan-Arab champions and jihad apologists like the late Edward Said and Prof. Rashid Khalidi, and his stated intention to have open negotiations with Iran about the mullocracy’s nuclear weapons program, his monetary ties to anti-Israel donors like George Soros and to anti-Israel organizations like Moveon.org are similarly pointed to as reasons for concern.”

“What is most interesting about the danger that Obama constitutes for Israel is how un-unique it is. It is no different than the danger the prospect his presidency constitutes for America. The reason that pseudo-realist Israel bashers and messianic peace mongering Israel bashers support Obama is because they naturally gravitate towards a man on a mission to save the free world from itself.
An empowered, free citizenry will question the realism behind their decision to pretend that the global jihad is the figment of the Jewish lobby’s imagination. A cowed, on its way to being redeemed by Obama’s cult of personality citizenry will be in no position to argue with them.”

“US Jews have always had a weakness for messianic leaders and movements. Sometimes, as in the case of the civil rights movement, that tendency towards utopianism has had good results. More often it has not. In the current presidential race, American Jews, like all their fellow Americans, would be wise to consider if they are truly ready to accept Obama as their savior.”

It is individuals like you in this country that continue to sling hate and archaic demgoguery by transmitting apocyphal information to your dedicated low information minions. Until you wake up, you are one of the reasons people in this country with your venom-filled attitude can’t tell the difference between a lie and the truth. We can have differences of ideology but do you have to stoop lower than a snake to make a point.

This is an EXCELLENT ARTICLE.I am a graduated of POLITICS at SNSPA (Romanian Political School).Despite SNSPA is a public,this school is owned by those who are studied using GRANTS or SCHOLARSHIP taxes of the SOROSH funds during the 90`s.This school is PLENTY of FEMINISTS,IDIOTS and GAYS who are are studied using Sorosh fund.You see that FEMINIST ideology is an obligatory course of SNSPAPolitical School.Many of the teachers was,before 1990, second rank COMUNISTS PROPAGANDA officers who became famous ROMANIAN PHD`s in Humanities by Sorosh fund GRANTS,after the fall of Ceausescu regime.In 2006 I was banned from a forum because I told about a conspiracy against Romanian Orthodox church done by leaders of NGO s of the Romanian Sorosh Fund Network.

He really is a terrible man. Somehow I think there are others funding Kenya Boy as well…the Saudis perhaps? It’s a good guess. God works in mysterious ways……just look at Sir Teddy Chappy Quick Dip Kennedy.

ohhh yeah, hes the one who inherited the $180+ Million personally from the stimulus to help build the kennedy memorial foundation that was “supposed” to go to the people and businesses for the economy.

hes got an excuse though.

he wouldn’t of taken the money, really, he wouldn’t. not if he hadn’t been so fucked up on pills and scotch. all those pills and scotch made him accept the check, sign it, be chauffeured to the bank and deposit it.

and to think… he was on life support, hanging on for dear life right before the election. the evil that came into the White house must of revived his sorry lame ass.

Why is this asshole Soros not in jail? I do not understand those who can not stand the United States why do they stay here. There are other countries in which they can live in. As I have stated before obuma is the antichrist. The sheeple will follow to the gates of HELL!

you people are so full of yourselves and crap. You call names and pint pictures. The dems don’t do that. they have something you people will never understand, “intelligent debate”. Without bigotry or name calling. You’re all a bunch of losers. Common sense will prevail and you will LOSE!!!!

The First Amendment gives us the right to express ourselves freely. Having said that, I have to comment on various images on this blog which portray a message that, although not intended, upon close inspection scream of racism.

These are the images I am referring to:

– The photo of Michelle Obama with the caption “White people are so f…… stupid”. (The caption carries the message of “us vs them”, “white vs blacks”. This paints Mrs. Obama as racist.)

– The poster, “Barack Obama, the DARK Socialist”. (It seems that DARK is not a coincidence here. Yes, you can argue it is based on the Dark Knight, but, the choice of words drips with racism.)

– The poster with Michelle Obama (HELL as her middle name) being compared to a Klingon. (This suggests she is an alien.)

– The photoshopped photo of Michelle Obama showing her as a monkey. (This requires no comment. The intent here is clear.)

There is nothing wrong with making fun of presidents with caricatures, jokes, cynical remarks and posters, negative comments, differences of opinion, play on words, nicknames, etc. These are all part of the political environment, and all presidents, as well as all public figures, are subject to this type of scrutiny and ridicule. Where I draw the line is when the commentary, be it written or in pictures, turns to racism due to prejudice. This does nothing to advance the discourse, and does everything to show the true colors of those engaged in this type of “subliminal messaging”.

Nevertheless, you have the right to carry these images and many more. The fact remains that BECAUSE you have the right does not MAKE it right.

It is really unpleasant to admit to yourself that this fraud has taken place. I remember when I finally accepted the reality that we have an active usurpation of the presidency going on. I don’t blame people for not wanting to admit it; it is painful.

The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Owhatever, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. The Obots who worship this poser without a past are big problem. Where did they come from? How did they come to hate this country so deeply? How do they function as adults without even basic curiosity or critical thinking?

Then there are the people in front of the facade who gleefully participated this usurpation and the crooks (Soros) behind the facade who really pulled this off.

Don’t you ever wonder: why him? Why did they need a third world punk to be the tip of the spear for this evil plan? So many questions so few answers.

To paraphrase Churchill: “Proving him to be a fraud is not the end or even the beginning of the end but merely the end of the beginning”.

Ada said,”Where I draw the line is when the commentary, be it written or in pictures, turns to racism due to prejudice. ”

Where you draw the line, huh…like you’re in charge of other’s thoughts, creativity, opinions, idea’s, etc,..

And you are wrong on your assertions of what the pictures represent. Here’s an Alinsky liberal tactic for ya….You are the racist one. You are because you interpret the pictures of how you want to see them, as you relate Michelle Obama to a primate, as you relate Michelle Obama as a fictional TV character, as you relate Barack Obama as a villain, and you take out of context what the presidents wife has said to make her out to be a racist.

I wanted to know why the Republicans hate Soros. After reading these two articles it was clear that this page was made for those who cannot read!

Those who cannot read will only look at the cartoons and distortion pictures, which promotes hatred and ignorance, therefore invigorate the Republicans.

For those who do read, there is hardly any evidence that Soros was wrong! What he said was and still are valid, and what he opposed (Bush administration) was reasonable.

I am glad that I have come to this site: You explained why Mr. Soros should be respected for his independence and honored for his bravery. This is proof how ignorant the creators od this web site are, and how much you wish all others are as brainless as you are.

OK , I have to say why is it if you are rep. conservative and what this country to be strong and safe ( not so much yourself but your kids) you are raciest and stupid.
Soros should be charged with crimes thru out his life but yet he is looked up to by people looking to blame the US for all the wrongs in the world.

and no I am not raciest, I am middle age white southern man, with two kids of mix race and my employees cover about all the colors and gay too.

oh and we all voted BUSH you we all really do love our kids and our country

I’M CONCERNED ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE INCLUDING SOROS WHO DESIRE TO DESTROY MY COUNTRY AND WAY OF LIFE. THE ABILITY WITH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO INFLUENCE OUR GOVERNMENT, AND THE DECISIONS MADE, SHOULD CAUSE EVERY AMERICAN TO LOOK UP BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON SOROS, WHERE HE CAME FROM, AND HOW HE THINKS, AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS, INCLUDING VAN JONES, BERTHA LEWIS, BILL AYERS, REV. WRIGHT, AND OUR OWN ATTORNEY GENERAL, ERIC HOLDER, NOT TO MENTION OBAMA, WHO CAME OUT OF NOWHERE , TO BE VOTED IN AS PRESIDENT OF THE USA. WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE AFRAID OF, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM ?

SALUTE TO MR. SOROS. HOW SAD. WHY DO PEOPLE FOLLOW THE DEVIL . I RECOMMEND THAT PERSONS , WHO ARE SOROS LOVERS , SEE THE INTERNATIONAL TRAVELING EXHIBITION “BODIES”, AND A PHYSICIATRIST. ONLY GOD KNOWS WHAT WILL EVENTUALLY HAPPEN TO ALL OF THE SOROS’S AROUND THE WORLD. THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT HUMANITY , ONLY THEIR SELF IMPORTANCE, WHICH WILL LEAD TO THEIR DEMENTIA . THEY WILL NOT EVEN KNOW THEIR NAME.

PRESIDENT BUSH WAS RECENTLY QUESTIONED ON OPRAH’S SHOW ABOUT HIS NEW BOOK “DECISION POINTS”. HIS ANSWERS STRUCK ME AS COMING FROM THE HEART IN DEFENSE OF AMERICA, AS A PRESIDENT IS EXPECTED TO PORTRAY. HIS ANSWERS WERE NOT FROM A TELEPROMTER. I KNOW WHERE HE CAME FROM. WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS UNCERTAINTY, FROM THE GOVERNMENT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE DOG HOUSE.

Can no one see this is leading up to one world order…………..It’s about control.. so many people rely on someone else to feed them, clothe them, house them and provide income I.E the Government !!! you enable that much power to someone or something what happens when you take that away with a 1/3 or more of the nation that now depends on it… Destruction !!! We are our own worst enemy !! Who has allowed this guy to invest an own so much to give him the power he has !!! Tell this A Hole NO !! American Indusrty should be kept at that.. were so free weve given it all away…people have lost sight of the constitution to fill their own pockets…We have to rid the nation of people like this and fix ours first before we can take care of others… so mad right now i cant even think

I think that the USA should boot your ass out and Obama along with you! This country needs a man that can run it with morals it looks like you have none! I think that if Obama is not from here that he should step down and you and he can go back to Kenya.We are being invaded from Mexico. and if we boot them out as well we could be a great nation again.

Ladies and Gentilmen, if you are readying this then it is too late already and the war has begun. Isreal will not fall, and the 36 muslim nations (calaphate) will fall as perdicted in the Bible. However the cost is our counries freedom, Isreal will survive, but we will not. This is the calm before the real storm. In the end what matters is not our petty greed (our gains), what matters is the ones we love, and what we do on this earth, to make it better.

Let’s just go googling for about 5 minutes and see what cartoons and articles I can find!

I don’t remember him ever having this mustache. Oh yeah, photoshopped to look like a nazi, Hitler no less. That’s really a very intelligent and debate filled photo to post.

Wow, I wonder what this picture suggests. Oh, I know that our president is a monkey. Must be racist because the creator of this pic is trying to say that all whites are monkeys.

Yes, nothing like a nice gay bashing, southerner jokes. Oh, and look at that he’s a monkey and he’s marrying a dog. Even got in a little beastiality and degradation of the white race to be monkeys too. Oh, but it must really be about WMDs though since that’s what the bouquet is made of. All the rest was just an accident.

And another debate sparking nazi pic just for fun to close the picture portion out.

That is all with safe search on. I don’t even want to try with safe search off.

One last thing for you to peruse Ada. Not that it’s of much importance it’s only about Kanye West (OMG I’M RACIST BECAUSE HE’S BLACK AND I DON’T CARE ABOUT HIM OR HIS OPINION).

No, seriously though, read through this article while you listen to one of his songs, if you like them. I’ve been feeling “Lonely” lately, maybe because I just split from my ex… But here is the link, it’s about Kanye calling Bush a racist and both of their thoughts on the events 6 years later.http://www.experience-it-all.com/?p=8926

Funny that Kanye gets it and you don’t. You see most of the time when we pull a race card it’s actually just a lack of understanding between two people of different races. And since people misunderstand each other all the time does that mean we are all racist.

You could say I am racist for calling a black man a thief, but does it really make me racist if I have reason to believe he stole from me? And if I later discover he did not steal from me and I stop calling him a thief and apologize for being wrong then…does that confirm I was a racist from the start or merely confirm that I do not know everything and merely try to make decisions based on the information at hand?

Oh, and Ada politicians have been portrayed as animals, frequently monkeys as a matter of fact, since about the time that political cartoons started. And I’m sure there were a few monarchs portrayed as monkeys too. So just because he is black and the president doesn’t mean he should get special treatment and not painted up like an ape. Nor should his wife Michelle not be teased for any abnormal features she happens to have (her fivehead that makes her look like a klingon comes to mind). Just like every first lady before her got the business in one way or another.

Hilary Clinton and her buck teeth, Laura Bush and her big hair and butt chin, etc.

Bottom line, discrimination is where you see it just as much as it is where it really is. So stop looking for it in a picture and start realizing there are more important things than “racist cartoons” to fight. How about the disproportionately low percent of blacks living in poverty? Or the disproportionately high percent of minority high school drop outs?

The Sorosians want you to think about the racist cartoon or the off the cuff comment that might have been racist. Rather than the real problems facing out society like poverty, growing uneducated lower classes, and starvation and war all around the world. Stop doing their bidding and start fighting what really matters in your own way.

And I hope you don’t take anything I said as anything more than a few joking sarcastic remarks to poke fun at the situation and a few thought provoking points to bring us both to a more complete understanding of each other.

Let’s just go googling for about 5 minutes and see what cartoons and articles I can find!

I don’t remember him ever having this mustache. Oh yeah, photoshopped to look like a nazi, Hitler no less. That’s really a very intelligent and debate filled photo to post.

Wow, I wonder what this picture suggests. Oh, I know that our president is a monkey. Must be racist because the creator of this pic is trying to say that all whites are monkeys.

Yes, nothing like a nice gay bashing, southerner jokes. Oh, and look at that he’s a monkey and he’s marrying a dog. Even got in a little beastiality and degradation of the white race to be monkeys too. Oh, but it must really be about WMDs though since that’s what the bouquet is made of. All the rest was just an accident.

And another debate sparking nazi pic just for fun to close the picture portion out.

That is all with safe search on. I don’t even want to try with safe search off.

One last thing for you to peruse Ada. Not that it’s of much importance it’s only about Kanye West (OMG I’M RACIST BECAUSE HE’S BLACK AND I DON’T CARE ABOUT HIM OR HIS OPINION).

No, seriously though, read through this article while you listen to one of his songs, if you like them. I’ve been feeling “Lonely” lately, maybe because I just split from my ex… But here is the link, it’s about Kanye calling Bush a racist and both of their thoughts on the events 6 years later.http://www.experience-it-all.com/?p=8926

Funny that Kanye gets it and you don’t. You see most of the time when we pull a race card it’s actually just a lack of understanding between two people of different races. And since people misunderstand each other all the time does that mean we are all racist.

You could say I am racist for calling a black man a thief, but does it really make me racist if I have reason to believe he stole from me? And if I later discover he did not steal from me and I stop calling him a thief and apologize for being wrong then…does that confirm I was a racist from the start or merely confirm that I do not know everything and merely try to make decisions based on the information at hand?

Oh, and Ada politicians have been portrayed as animals, frequently monkeys as a matter of fact, since about the time that political cartoons started. And I’m sure there were a few monarchs portrayed as monkeys too. So just because he is black and the president doesn’t mean he should get special treatment and not painted up like an ape. Nor should his wife Michelle not be teased for any abnormal features she happens to have (her fivehead that makes her look like a klingon comes to mind). Just like every first lady before her got the business in one way or another.

Hilary Clinton and her buck teeth, Laura Bush and her big hair and butt chin, etc.

Bottom line, discrimination is where you see it just as much as it is where it really is. So stop looking for it in a picture and start realizing there are more important things than “racist cartoons” to fight. How about the disproportionately low percent of blacks living in poverty? Or the disproportionately high percent of minority high school drop outs?

The Sorosians want you to think about the racist cartoon or the off the cuff comment that might have been racist. Rather than the real problems facing out society like poverty, growing uneducated lower classes, and starvation and war all around the world. Stop doing their bidding and start fighting what really matters in your own way.

I am neither a democract, or a republican, I live in Australia and I find American politics frankly, quite bizarre. So I wouldn’t normally comment on a Republican blog.
But having read through the piece of absolute nonsense above, I want to make a suggestion. Don’t form opinions about things you know nothing about.
The charge of abetting the NAZI’s has been explained over and over again, it doesn’t take more than a google search to show the nonsense of your allegations, and yet you state it like it’s beyond debate.
Most experts suggest that Soros did England a favour when he speculated against their currency, and indeed the economic data supporting this is difficult to refute. Where is your refutation? Or did you just label him a ‘currency speculator’ (big powerful emotive words huh!) and then move on.
Soros’s open societies provide funding to a stunning array of pro-democratic projects across the world, some of those projects have gone bad, and done damage to the societies they are intended to help, most projects have been for the better. This is the natural of the game. If you compared the success rate of Soros’s work to World Vision, I’d go with Soros.
If you gave me a detailed summary of your life history I could produce a more convincing conspiracy theory than you have done above.
It is because of nonsense like this, that America is struggling. Too many voters have detached from reality.

FIRST; STEPHEN, SHUT UP !!! YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS IN YOUR COUNTRY SOMEDAY. HOWEVER, YOU SEEM TO BE THE ONLY JERK IN AUSTRALIA. SOROS AND HIS BUDDY obama ARE A REAL DOWNER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND OUR COUNTRY !!!

i find ozzies FUCKED-UP and BIZARRE, bunch of fluride-poisoned brain-dead drucks.
As for Soros, well, he needs to be incarcer4ated for his many crimes against humanity. He is the FALSE PROPHET. The 3 frogs: 1) hard-core porn, 2) hard-core homosexualtiy, and 3) hard-core abortion (meaning anything ready to hatch up to NINE months, or even after, “they should have been aborted”.
He, Soros, should have been aborted just like Obamba and they know it, they wish it, they want that time machine in the anarctic so they can abort ALL of humanity.
JEWS, take note, he hates you and he will gather you in for the slaughter. He is one of what you call a “self-hating” Jew, except he really means it. He will slaughter you first if he gets his chance.

Stop old Georgie in his tracks and demand the reinstatement of the
GLASS-STEAGALL ACT H.R.1489 immediately. It will literally wipe out the trillions in artificial debt that they want America to pay.
IT’S NOT OUR DEBT!